House adopts amendment to change local direct distribution percentage after extended debate

Lawmakers spent much of the day debating changes to the state’s direct distribution to cities, towns and counties, a fund many members described as a continuing replacement for earlier sales‑tax policy. Representative Larson and others proposed raising the baseline percentage for local distribution; Representative Bair and others argued for caution and said the Joint Appropriations Committee (JAC) had studied a middle ground.

Supporters described the adjustment as a way to stabilize revenue for hardship counties and special districts facing property tax swings and service cuts. Representative Lawley argued the change would help small towns sustain emergency services, senior centers and public safety (SEG 1021–1044). Opponents noted the potential long‑term fiscal implications and urged reliance on appropriations for one‑time needs (SEG 1000–1016).

After back‑and‑forth debate and a roll‑call, the House adopted second‑reading amendment number 2 to House Bill 107; the chief clerk recorded 38 yes, 22 no, and 2 excused (SEG 1996–1999, SEG 2000). The bill proceeded toward third reading with the adopted amendment in place.

Members cited historical context: the distribution began as compensation after the state changed the grocery tax in 2005, and several speakers invoked the "Madden formula" and the need to ensure fairness for poor and hardship counties (multiple floor comments, SEG 850–930).